AveryLP I think the plan is George P wins his Texas Land Commissioner election this year, then governor 2018, then president 2024 to succeed Hillary, which is probably why the Bushes are not pushing Jeb's candidacy too hard in 2016
SeanT As I have already posted the US has its own internal problems to worry about, as Samuel Huntingdon has stated particularly with its growing Hispanic demographic, but I agree with the point
Carnyx unlike Miliband Salmond has opposed raising the top rate of tax to 50%. Post independence the right of the SNP would join with the Scottish Tories
Good post. How would there even be a UK? given that the UK is the union of two sovereign nation states - England and Scotland.
So it's win,win,win,vote for independence and give the rest of uk a referendum on our EU membership ;-) two or maybe one year before tories would give one ;-)
SeanT As I have already posted the US has its own internal problems to worry about, as Samuel Huntingdon has stated particularly with its growing Hispanic demographic, but I agree with the point
For an illustration of how the Hispanic demographic is growing, look no further than the ultimate American pastime, the boys of summer playing major league baseball.
8.3% of mlb players this year are African American, down from 19% twenty years ago.
Hispanics - virtually all non-American born - make up 28% of mlb players. The figure is growing rapidly.
Good post. How would there even be a UK? given that the UK is the union of two sovereign nation states - England and Scotland.
It amazes me how few people know their history. The UK is the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain that was the union of England and Scotland, which happened nearly a century before.
That means for Scotland to leave, a new act would be needed, because the Act of Union 1707 has been superceded. Thus it can't be revoked. What would be happening is that part of Great Britain is leaving, in a similar manner to part of Ireland leaving in the early 1920s. The UK would survive after Scottish independence, just as it survived after Irish independence. Within a couple of years, we might change the name slightly, but the UK would definitely survive.
Good post. How would there even be a UK? given that the UK is the union of two sovereign nation states - England and Scotland.
It amazes me how few people know their history. The UK is the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain that was the union of England and Scotland, which happened nearly a century before.
Did you have a hand in drafting the Maria Miller judgement?
Number of people who give a tinker's cuss about the difference: Zero.
SeanT As I have already posted the US has its own internal problems to worry about, as Samuel Huntingdon has stated particularly with its growing Hispanic demographic, but I agree with the point
For an illustration of how the Hispanic demographic is growing, look no further than the ultimate American pastime, the boys of summer playing major league baseball.
8.3% of mlb players this year are African American, down from 19% twenty years ago.
Hispanics - virtually all non-American born - make up 28% of mlb players. The figure is growing rapidly.
Only 62% of mlb players are caucasian.
Sounds like those of Georgian and Armenian descent must be hugely overrepresented in the sport.
Now, all this might not happen, but it also might indeed happen, very easily: no one has ever cut a major western power in two so no one knows the consequences.
What about when France gave independence to Algeria?
Because it was a meaningless statement to make in the first place, and even then it was still incorrect. Scotland is less than a tenth of the UK population. Obviously the UK will be diminished if it left, but the idea we would have some sort of financial crisis over it is ridiculous. The main problem is that the next government would spend most of its time negotiating independence when we should be focused on reform elsewhere.
OGH Indeed, well stranger things have happened, UKIP victory in 2015 on a wave of British nationalism after independence narrow YES vote in which Scottish borders votes strongly NO
OGH Indeed, well stranger things have happened, UKIP victory in 2015 on a wave of British nationalism after independence narrow YES vote in which Scottish borders votes strongly NO
*sigh* The mockney clickbaiter whines about Labour then still manages to fall short of the shrieking hysteria and scaremongering that SLAB's finest can conjure up.
I was debating indy with a Swiss financier the other day, and he was simultaneously bewildered and astonished that the Brits are even considering cutting the country in two. He pointed out several possible ways that it could be disastrous for all.
e.g. what if the credit agencies decide rUK deserves a notably lower credit rating, as foreign investors shun rUK bonds and perceived new risk? Then our interest rates go up. Given that we already have a dangerously large deficit we would have to cut spending and increase taxes to repay the higher interest rates: result: serious new recession, surging unemployment, and so on.
And chortling indyScots would swiftly find things less amusing, as they would be dragged down the toilet by the travails of their biggest trading partner, etc etc
We could also see a run on the pound, a balance of payments crisis, a property crash as interest rates are jacked up, a run on Scottish banks by English depositors (with financial instability spreading to the City). On and on and on.
Now, all this might not happen, but it also might indeed happen, very easily: no one has ever cut a major western power in two so no one knows the consequences. ...
Sean
I love the "Swiss Financier". What if the prognosis had come from the mouth of an "Italian" or "Bulgarian" financier?
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
The Bank of England through its subsidiary Asset Purchase Facility Fund Ltd., which manages the BoE/Treasury QE programme, calculates annually the market risk to which it is exposed. Market risk is defined as "the risk of loss as a result of changes in market risk factors. These include interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices and credit spreads". The market risk the APFF is most exposed to is fluctuation in market interest rates on gilts.
The BoE quantify this risk in the form form of ‘delta’, which is the change in valuation from a 1 basis point increase in market interest rates. One basis point is 1/100th of one per cent or 0.01%.
The delta for the APFF alone, holding £375 billion of UK gilts, at 28 February 2013 was £373.6 million.
Effectively this means a 1% increase in market interest rates could result in the QE portfolio (alone) falling in market value by £37.4 billion, a sum equivalent to the UK's annual defence budget.
Given that the size of the APFF is around 30% of total gilts outstanding, on which the UK pays interest, even a Greek Financier would recognise how exposed the UK is to external economic shocks.
It also explains, for Danny565, why the two Eds have no option but to promise to eradicate the deficit over the course of the next parliament.
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
Anyway I'm off to Edinburgh on Tuesday for a session at Holyrood alongside John Curtice. I'm really looking forward to the trip at such an interesting point in the process.
SeanT/RCS1000 Maybe, but most of those Mexican Americans send money back to their families in Mexico. Once they get to a majority in, say California, who knows if they will not push for reunion with Mexico and bring back to Mexico what would be its richest state by far?
Of course, we should also not ignore the rising Hispanic population in the Southwestern US. They already make up a plurality in New Mexico, and are increasing in California, Arizona and Texas, who knows if they will start to push for a reunion with Mexico?
OK guys, let's stop this nonsense here and now.
American states have already voted to leave the Union - the Union used immense force to stop them. Texas was particularly aggrieved as it had been an independent country only a few years before. Now, granted, the war was over slavery so the Union was particularly determined to not to allow secession, so I don't think they would be so determined this time.
Incidentally, part of California is still in Mexico.
Robert, I think you are bang on the money with both your prediction on turnout, and also for a very decisive victory for the Better Together campaign in the Indy Ref.
I'm going to make a prediction I've made before, and I'll make it again:
The Scottish referendum is not going to be close; it's going to be a big victory for "Better Together".
And the reason for this is that turnout is going to be incredibly high. And very large numbers of "Yeah, I hate the English, but I'm a little concerned about going it alone" voters are going to come out on the day and vote to stay in. When turnout is above 85%, having incredibly committed supporters and the world's greatest GOTV operation means nothing.
Turnout will be above 85% because this is not AV. This is not Lords reform. This is not something minor like who will be your MP for the next couple of years. This is a majorly big deal that will matter for the rest of people's lives.
And therefore the attractions of the status quo will win through, and will win through big. It may very well be the wrong decision for Scotland, but this is what will happen.
Would anyone disagree that the Germans have been incredibly stupid making themselves reliant on Russian energy sources by switching off their nuclear power stations?
Ah, so it is you who Brooke's drunken ravings are really aimed at. Thanks for the tip Avery. I'll be sure to point him in your direction the next time he starts his deranged babbling.
Ninoionoz Indeed, but this time hypothetically a Hispanic majority, Mexico, would be in league with a foreign power, Mexico, and California, Texas, Arizona, NM etc were part of Mexico for far longer than the Confederacy was in existence. Though I accept the prospect is highly unlikely
My wife, Scottish born and bred of Scottish parents, and with a sister still living there, currently holds a British passport. She also has a twin sister living in England.
If Scotland goes independent, what passport would she get?
As she is also shortly getting US citizenship, (whose passport fee is 1/3 of the UK fee), will an independent Scotland allow dual citizenship?
And people often emotionally want independence (and say that when queried). But when in the privacy of the ballot box choose the safe option.
And let's not forget the threats of retribution that the Nationalists have been chucking about at anyone who's dared to voice pro-union sentiments. That poor travel agent was threatened with having his business boycotted and his employee's livelihoods wrecked. You need to be a brave man indeed to speak out in that sort of climate.
He printed a tissue of lies and threatened his staff, he was supposedly retired, dodgy to say the least
Would anyone disagree that the Germans have been incredibly stupid making themselves reliant on Russian energy sources by switching off their nuclear power stations?
German gas demand is down 25% in the last three years as a result of their (somewhat crazy) renewables policies.
And they can always cancel nuclear shutdown if they need to.
Good post. How would there even be a UK? given that the UK is the union of two sovereign nation states - England and Scotland.
It amazes me how few people know their history. The UK is the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain that was the union of England and Scotland, which happened nearly a century before.
Did you have a hand in drafting the Maria Miller judgement?
Number of people who give a tinker's cuss about the difference: Zero.
Correction: One. You.
So gloriously pedantic a response was it I cowered beneath a nearby haggis
DavidL, thanks for the second update on your canvassing in Aberdeen. Curiously, really surprised at how few people rated Cameron's survival when compared to that of Miliband, Farage and Salmond in Mike's wee poll above. I suspect that not only will a desire for economic stability deliver a decisive victory for No in the Indy Ref, but it will also be the reason why Ed Miliband will fail to evict David Cameron from No10 after the next GE.
The economy and stability were by far the largest reasons given for supporting no. Those who did support yes were less focussed on the issues and much more had their eyes on the prize.
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
The Bank of England through its subsidiary Asset Purchase Facility Fund Ltd., which manages the BoE/Treasury QE programme, calculates annually the market risk to which it is exposed. Market risk is defined as "the risk of loss as a result of changes in market risk factors. These include interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices and credit spreads". The market risk the APFF is most exposed to is fluctuation in market interest rates on gilts.
The BoE quantify this risk in the form form of ‘delta’, which is the change in valuation from a 1 basis point increase in market interest rates. One basis point is 1/100th of one per cent or 0.01%.
The delta for the APFF alone, holding £375 billion of UK gilts, at 28 February 2013 was £373.6 million.
Effectively this means a 1% increase in market interest rates could result in the QE portfolio (alone) falling in market value by £37.4 billion, a sum equivalent to the UK's annual defence budget.
Given that the size of the APFF is around 30% of total gilts outstanding, on which the UK pays interest, even a Greek Financier would recognise how exposed the UK is to external economic shocks.
It also explains, for Danny565, why the two Eds have no option but to promise to eradicate the deficit over the course of the next parliament.
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
The other major problem is that there are many people who have bought into Salmond's Fantasy Eckland and regard Salmond as the new Messiah.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
My wife, Scottish born and bred of Scottish parents, and with a sister still living there, currently holds a British passport. She also has a twin sister living in England.
If Scotland goes independent, what passport would she get?
As she is also shortly getting US citizenship, (whose passport fee is 1/3 of the UK fee), will an independent Scotland allow dual citizenship?
See the White Paper issued by the Scottish Gmt. Of course, it doesn't say what EWNI will allow, and of course you don't say what nationality you are, but IIRC Mrs May has backtracked, so she can probably get a hat trick should she so wish.
Robert, I think you are bang on the money with both your prediction on turnout, and also for a very decisive victory for the Better Together campaign in the Indy Ref.
I'm going to make a prediction I've made before, and I'll make it again:
The Scottish referendum is not going to be close; it's going to be a big victory for "Better Together".
And the reason for this is that turnout is going to be incredibly high. And very large numbers of "Yeah, I hate the English, but I'm a little concerned about going it alone" voters are going to come out on the day and vote to stay in. When turnout is above 85%, having incredibly committed supporters and the world's greatest GOTV operation means nothing.
Turnout will be above 85% because this is not AV. This is not Lords reform. This is not something minor like who will be your MP for the next couple of years. This is a majorly big deal that will matter for the rest of people's lives.
And therefore the attractions of the status quo will win through, and will win through big. It may very well be the wrong decision for Scotland, but this is what will happen.
Surprise surprise , die hard Tory surger thinks it will be NO.
My wife, Scottish born and bred of Scottish parents, and with a sister still living there, currently holds a British passport. She also has a twin sister living in England.
If Scotland goes independent, what passport would she get?
As she is also shortly getting US citizenship, (whose passport fee is 1/3 of the UK fee), will an independent Scotland allow dual citizenship?
See the White Paper issued by the Scottish Gmt. Of course, it doesn't say what EWNI will allow, and of course you don't say what nationality you are, but IIRC Mrs May has backtracked, so she can probably get a hat trick should she so wish.
Lancashire born, Yorkshire bred, with UK and US dual citizenship.
The only thing I know about White Papers is you need to wash your hands after reading them :-)
Given that the ten highest mountains in the UK are all in Scotland, and much of the fair country is on high ground. what proportion of the UK is in Scotland in terms of land *volume*? A real poser that one.
I was debating indy with a Swiss financier the other day, and he was simultaneously
Now, all this might not happen, but it also might indeed happen, very easily: no one has ever cut a major western power in two so no one knows the consequences. ...
Sean
I love the "Swiss Financier". What if the prognosis had come from the mouth of an "Italian" or "Bulgarian" financier?
What struck me about this dude was his cynical dispassion. He said "of course, emotionally, I don't give a f*ck what you Brits do, it's up to you" - but then he languidly detailed all the horrors that might unfold, and exactly why Partition was a hideous experiment in self-harm.
It was quite chilling. And his lack of personal involvement made it more impressive. In a bad way.
Markets react most aggressively to unexpected news.
Robert S. is among the nearest PB has got to an professional market participant. If his views on the outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum are in any way representative of the market as a whole (and I believe they are), then not only will market reaction to a YES vote reflect the risks outlined by your Swiss roller, but they will also include the overreaction which results from shock news.
Now there will be many who respond by saying that the polls between now and September will diminish any potential shock reaction by increasingly indicating a YES voting intention. But all that means is that the shock reaction will be unwound before the referendum result, i.e. between now and September.
DavidL, thanks for the second update on your canvassing in Aberdeen. Curiously, really surprised at how few people rated Cameron's survival when compared to that of Miliband, Farage and Salmond in Mike's wee poll above. I suspect that not only will a desire for economic stability deliver a decisive victory for No in the Indy Ref, but it will also be the reason why Ed Miliband will fail to evict David Cameron from No10 after the next GE.
The economy and stability were by far the largest reasons given for supporting no. Those who did support yes were less focussed on the issues and much more had their eyes on the prize.
I hope you are right fitalass. I am not quite so confident but we can be hope!
What odds will you give me that, if Scotland gets independence, the rUK will not enter recession in the following two years?
Too imponderable, and too short-sighted. It might take 3 or 4 years for the slow, inexorable spiral of instability to really eat into growth. But it will.
However, I will bet you £50 at evens that rUK's credit rating is lowered within two years of a YES vote.
I'm not getting to bet cash on the whims of the ratings agencies. I've made my contempt pretty clear for them over the last few years. One downgraded the US and their borrowing costs actually went down.
I actually think it's plausible there might be a small rise in rates, but small is the word. I'll bet you the same amount at evens that the average interest rate on UK 10Y bonds in the six months after separation is not more than 150 basis points higher than the average in the six months before.
Given that the ten highest mountains in the UK are all in Scotland, and much of the fair country is on high ground. what proportion of the UK is in Scotland in terms of land *volume*? A real poser that one.
ISTR an old joke saying that if Wales was flattened out, it would be larger than England. No idea if I've remembered that correctly though.
I think your question is one for the OS, or at least someone with (say) the OS terrain data (1), perl/python and a little time. ;-)
I've certainly never heard it posed before. I'd expect the volume of the Cairngorm Plateau alone would have more volume than Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk combined.
George Osborne will set out proposals today to allow Conservative governments to deliver tax cuts even while borrowing is at high levels.
By highlighting the beneficial impact of tax cuts on growth, the chancellor will make clear that there may be more scope than has so far been indicated to reduce the burden of taxation early in the next Parliament.
Part of peoples misunderstanding of the relative size of Scotland and England comes from the way a lot of maps are drawn. I used to get requests while in Dumfries to "Just pop over to Edinburgh and do a collection"....inquiring about overtime puzzled some of them immensely.
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
...
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
The other major problem is that there are many people who have bought into Salmond's Fantasy Eckland and regard Salmond as the new Messiah.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
I have always thought that Salmond and Cameron both knew and agreed the likely outcome of the referendum and that there is a 'mutual understanding' on how to protect each other's interests in the aftermath of a No vote.
My ideal response of a confederacy of sovereign nations, with terms of the union built up from a blank sheet and with voluntary surrender of power is probably a step too far.
But simple 'Devo Max' will also be no answer. The reason the referendum will fail is that there are mutual assets and structures whose continuance are in both parties' and the Scots people's interest (Monarchy, Pound etc. etc.).
What Salmond and Cameron will both need to do, and do quickly, is work out a list of realistic, popular and mutually beneficial devolutionary changes which can be promised for implementation as soon as possible. And probably more important than changes to structures and powers will the need for a change in tone from both sides.
Frankly I'm hopeful. Both Salmond and Cameron are sufficiently astute politicians to know what will be needed.
The Act of Union of 1707 specifically refers to a "united kingdom" of England and Scotland, so while England and Scotland became the Great Britain of 1802, they are quite correctly referred to as the original United Kingdom. Nevertheless the Acts of Union 1707 can't be repealed as you say.
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
...
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
The other major problem is that there are many people who have bought into Salmond's Fantasy Eckland and regard Salmond as the new Messiah.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
I have always thought that Salmond and Cameron both knew and agreed the likely outcome of the referendum and that there is a 'mutual understanding' on how to protect each other's interests in the aftermath of a No vote.
My ideal response of a confederacy of sovereign nations, with terms of the union built up from a blank sheet and with voluntary surrender of power is probably a step too far.
But simple 'Devo Max' will also be no answer. The reason the referendum will fail is that there are mutual assets and structures whose continuance are in both parties' and the Scots people's interest (Monarchy, Pound etc. etc.).
What Salmond and Cameron will both need to do, and do quickly, is work out a list of realistic, popular and mutually beneficial devolutionary changes which can be promised for implementation as soon as possible. And probably more important than changes to structures and powers will the need for a change in tone from both sides.
Frankly I'm hopeful. Both Salmond and Cameron are sufficiently astute politicians to know what will be needed.The UK is not sovereign. HMG implements laws decided in Brussels.
The problem with devolving power from London to Edinburgh is that London is not where the power resides, and the attempt would reveal that.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it will matter to a whole field of international treaties whether the UK continues to exist or not.
Not really though. Because the UK joined the EU through an act of parliament. If Scotland leave it will be merely be reversing the act of union. It won't cause all following acts to be null and void.
Jordan Spieth is going to cost me money at the Masters, but I am a big fan of his demonstrative surly attitude!
He didn't do himself any favors with his behavior on 10 and 16, but then the tournament was over after the 4 shot swing on 8 and 9.
But he'll learn from the experience and he'll be back. Reember 18 months ago he was an amateur, and he's still too young to either drink or rent a car.
Yet again, it proves the adage of the tournament being decided on the back 9 on Sunday.
Given that the ten highest mountains in the UK are all in Scotland, and much of the fair country is on high ground. what proportion of the UK is in Scotland in terms of land *volume*? A real poser that one.
ISTR an old joke saying that if Wales was flattened out, it would be larger than England. No idea if I've remembered that correctly though.
I think your question is one for the OS, or at least someone with (say) the OS terrain data (1), perl/python and a little time. ;-)
I've certainly never heard it posed before. I'd expect the volume of the Cairngorm Plateau alone would have more volume than Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk combined.
Following up on my own post, Mrs J just read this and has got her pen and paper out, trying to work out the necessary maths. She's talking about triple integration and so forth. I hate you, BobaFett: she'll be up to the early hours now thinking about this...
There's a question of how you define volume. Do you measure from sea level (which is a non-circular geoid anyway), or from the centre of the earth, which would have similar problems? If sea level do you include just land mass, or subtract estuarine waters?
As the client, you should really specify the problem more fully. ;-)
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
...
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
The other major problem is that there are many people who have bought into Salmond's Fantasy Eckland and regard Salmond as the new Messiah.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
I have always thought that Salmond and Cameron both knew and agreed the likely outcome of the referendum and that there is a 'mutual understanding' on how to protect each other's interests in the aftermath of a No vote.
My ideal response of a confederacy of sovereign nations, with terms of the union built up from a blank sheet and with voluntary surrender of power is probably a step too far.
But simple 'Devo Max' will also be no answer. The reason the referendum will fail is that there are mutual assets and structures whose continuance are in both parties' and the Scots people's interest (Monarchy, Pound etc. etc.).
What Salmond and Cameron will both need to do, and do quickly, is work out a list of realistic, popular and mutually beneficial devolutionary changes which can be promised for implementation as soon as possible. And probably more important than changes to structures and powers will the need for a change in tone from both sides.
Frankly I'm hopeful. Both Salmond and Cameron are sufficiently astute politicians to know what will be needed.
The UK is not sovereign. HMG implements laws decided in Brussels.
The problem with devolving power from London to Edinburgh is that London is not where the power resides, and the attempt would reveal that.
My preference for a voluntary union of sovereign states applies as much to Scotland within the United Kingdom as it does to the United Kingdom within the EU.
The future success of both Unions depends on successful 'bottom up' reform.
Scotland surrendering sovereignty to the UK without reciprocal benefit is as unsustainable as the UK doing the same with the EU.
Given that the ten highest mountains in the UK are all in Scotland, and much of the fair country is on high ground. what proportion of the UK is in Scotland in terms of land *volume*? A real poser that one.
ISTR an old joke saying that if Wales was flattened out, it would be larger than England. No idea if I've remembered that correctly though.
I think your question is one for the OS, or at least someone with (say) the OS terrain data (1), perl/python and a little time. ;-)
I've certainly never heard it posed before. I'd expect the volume of the Cairngorm Plateau alone would have more volume than Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk combined.
Following up on my own post, Mrs J just read this and has got her pen and paper out, trying to work out the necessary maths. She's talking about triple integration and so forth. I hate you, BobaFett: she'll be up to the early hours now thinking about this...
There's a question of how you define volume. Do you measure from sea level (which is a non-circular geoid anyway), or from the centre of the earth, which would have similar problems? If sea level do you include just land mass, or subtract estuarine waters?
As the client, you should really specify the problem more fully. ;-)
Ha! From sea level including any non-tidal waters?
If an independent Scotland applied for admission as a state to the USA think what would happen -
1.lower taxes 2. cheaper petrol 3. cheaper satellite TV 4. great income from defense contracts for airforce and navy 5 baseball and NFL football in kilts....
Ninoionoz Indeed, but this time hypothetically a Hispanic majority, Mexico, would be in league with a foreign power, Mexico, and California, Texas, Arizona, NM etc were part of Mexico for far longer than the Confederacy was in existence. Though I accept the prospect is highly unlikely
You remind me that one of the ways the Confederacy could have won was by a foreign power joining in on their side. But Britain was a superpower then, Mexico most certainly isn't one now.
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
...
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
The other major problem is that there are many people who have bought into Salmond's Fantasy Eckland and regard Salmond as the new Messiah.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
I have always thought that Salmond and Cameron both knew and agreed the likely outcome of the referendum and that there is a 'mutual understanding' on how to protect each other's interests in the aftermath of a No vote.
My ideal response of a confederacy of sovereign nations, with terms of the union built up from a blank sheet and with voluntary surrender of power is probably a step too far.
But simple 'Devo Max' will also be no answer. The reason the referendum will fail is that there are mutual assets and structures whose continuance are in both parties' and the Scots people's interest (Monarchy, Pound etc. etc.).
What Salmond and Cameron will both need to do, and do quickly, is work out a list of realistic, popular and mutually beneficial devolutionary changes which can be promised for implementation as soon as possible. And probably more important than changes to structures and powers will the need for a change in tone from both sides.
Frankly I'm hopeful. Both Salmond and Cameron are sufficiently astute politicians to know what will be needed.
The UK is not sovereign. HMG implements laws decided in Brussels.
The problem with devolving power from London to Edinburgh is that London is not where the power resides, and the attempt would reveal that.
The UK government is sovereign, but it gave away powers without asking the people. The UK is sovereign in that it could decide to take back those powers.
Would actually love it if the fib dems are polling 7-8% and ukip high teens on the lead up to the GE and Cleggs in the debates while Farage isn't... The lame excuses from the status quo would prob win the kippers 3 or 4 seats
Would actually love it if the fib dems are polling 7-8% and ukip high teens on the lead up to the GE and Cleggs in the debates while Farage isn't... The lame excuses from the status quo would prob win the kippers 3 or 4 seats
I think you are on the right side of the 6-4 about UKIP votes > Lib Dems I think you have with some people here.
Options BobaFett Posts: 990 2:32PM @MikeSmithson - great documentary/focus group on the Red Liberals on C4 News Catch Up site. Very much backs up your arguments.
Lots of it about. Rather like forecasting the Premier League winner in August with the caveat that you will update the forecast next month if your tip turns out to be shit. That won't get the money of those who have followed you back.
Comments
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Dogs and cats living together,, MASS HYSTERIA!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzqiPvGrkTo
Gertcha!
*chortle*
'The Tea Party Always Has Room For One More Voice In Their Heads' http://huff.to/1ibTvDP via @HuffPostComedy
Good post. How would there even be a UK? given that the UK is the union of two sovereign nation states - England and Scotland.
Go for it my Scottish friends ;-)
8.3% of mlb players this year are African American, down from 19% twenty years ago.
Hispanics - virtually all non-American born - make up 28% of mlb players. The figure is growing rapidly.
Only 62% of mlb players are caucasian.
That means for Scotland to leave, a new act would be needed, because the Act of Union 1707 has been superceded. Thus it can't be revoked. What would be happening is that part of Great Britain is leaving, in a similar manner to part of Ireland leaving in the early 1920s. The UK would survive after Scottish independence, just as it survived after Irish independence. Within a couple of years, we might change the name slightly, but the UK would definitely survive.
Number of people who give a tinker's cuss about the difference: Zero.
Correction: One. You.
Maria Miller expenses scandal sends UKIP soaring to record high in opinion polls as voters desert Tories http://buff.ly/QiDrpu
We get the oil, the English keep the tax havens....... Which one has the most sustainable future?
Actually, I'm pretty sure it will matter to a whole field of international treaties whether the UK continues to exist or not.
Because it was a meaningless statement to make in the first place, and even then it was still incorrect. Scotland is less than a tenth of the UK population. Obviously the UK will be diminished if it left, but the idea we would have some sort of financial crisis over it is ridiculous. The main problem is that the next government would spend most of its time negotiating independence when we should be focused on reform elsewhere.
Leaving the EU offers many positives for the UK
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12588&article=www.thinkscotland.org
He would soon "sort out" Putin.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/carmichael-and-teddy-bear.jpg
What odds will you give me that, if Scotland gets independence, the rUK will not enter recession in the following two years?
David Leigh @davidleigh3
Bonkers! George Robertson says Scots Yes vote will unleash world forces of darkness; http://gu.com/p/3z92b/tw via @guardian
Oh, how we laughed.
AyeForScotland @ScotlandAye Apr 8
My forces of darkness are ready to take on George Robertson pic.twitter.com/Gkoy3B47le
Jonathan Mackie @MackieJonathan Apr 8
By unleashing the Forces of Darkness as George Robertson says, I have managed to get a seat on the bus. Result.
Allister @ScottishPleb 6h
Don't look round Johann, but the forces of darkness I requested have just arrived pic.twitter.com/gUeRCbtcvx
Trevor Chaplin @TrevorChaplin Apr 8
One of the actual Forces of Darkness, which we can get rid of by voting Yes: pic.twitter.com/oYVUc0TVbX
James Doleman @jamesdoleman Apr 8
The forces of darkness contemplate Scottish independence #indyref pic.twitter.com/bMTSsYozP1
Gerry Mckay @gerrymckay Apr 8
Forces of darkness aye? #scotnight pic.twitter.com/qfJPPEEf50
Gerry Chambers @GerryChambers1 59m
“@klockedthis: run tonight towards Dumbarton Rock. pic.twitter.com/XIepH4kKe3” Brill photo, as usual. Looks like forces of darkness r gathering!
I was debating indy with a Swiss financier the other day, and he was simultaneously bewildered and astonished that the Brits are even considering cutting the country in two. He pointed out several possible ways that it could be disastrous for all.
e.g. what if the credit agencies decide rUK deserves a notably lower credit rating, as foreign investors shun rUK bonds and perceived new risk? Then our interest rates go up. Given that we already have a dangerously large deficit we would have to cut spending and increase taxes to repay the higher interest rates: result: serious new recession, surging unemployment, and so on.
And chortling indyScots would swiftly find things less amusing, as they would be dragged down the toilet by the travails of their biggest trading partner, etc etc
We could also see a run on the pound, a balance of payments crisis, a property crash as interest rates are jacked up, a run on Scottish banks by English depositors (with financial instability spreading to the City). On and on and on.
Now, all this might not happen, but it also might indeed happen, very easily: no one has ever cut a major western power in two so no one knows the consequences. ...
Sean
I love the "Swiss Financier". What if the prognosis had come from the mouth of an "Italian" or "Bulgarian" financier?
But (s)he is bang on the money nonetheless. All the risks he highlights are real.
The Bank of England through its subsidiary Asset Purchase Facility Fund Ltd., which manages the BoE/Treasury QE programme, calculates annually the market risk to which it is exposed. Market risk is defined as "the risk of loss as a result of changes in market risk factors. These include interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices and credit spreads". The market risk the APFF is most exposed to is fluctuation in market interest rates on gilts.
The BoE quantify this risk in the form form of ‘delta’, which is the change in valuation from a 1 basis point increase in market interest rates. One basis point is 1/100th of one per cent or 0.01%.
The delta for the APFF alone, holding £375 billion of UK gilts, at 28 February 2013 was £373.6 million.
Effectively this means a 1% increase in market interest rates could result in the QE portfolio (alone) falling in market value by £37.4 billion, a sum equivalent to the UK's annual defence budget.
Given that the size of the APFF is around 30% of total gilts outstanding, on which the UK pays interest, even a Greek Financier would recognise how exposed the UK is to external economic shocks.
It also explains, for Danny565, why the two Eds have no option but to promise to eradicate the deficit over the course of the next parliament.
It further explains why the Bank of England is in no hurry at all to raise bank rate from 0.5%.
American states have already voted to leave the Union - the Union used immense force to stop them. Texas was particularly aggrieved as it had been an independent country only a few years before. Now, granted, the war was over slavery so the Union was particularly determined to not to allow secession, so I don't think they would be so determined this time.
Incidentally, part of California is still in Mexico.
Or that the kippers were on the wane?
Peter Pink @ideas4thefuture 25m
Maria Miller expenses scandal sends UKIP soaring to record high in opinion polls as voters desert Tories http://buff.ly/QiDrpu
Go back to your yellow boxes of inept spin Avery, people really enjoy those.
@MikeSmithson let's have an Even money bet on vote % winner at the GE?
Ill pay the site my winnings you can pay yours as a donation to UKIP?
Shouldn't you be with your Master?
Heel, boy!
Nonetheless May is approaching fast so the kipper upswing could well be starting.
Ah, so it is you who Brooke's drunken ravings are really aimed at. Thanks for the tip Avery.
I'll be sure to point him in your direction the next time he starts his deranged babbling.
ComRes: Cameron showed "serious lack of leadership over his handling of Maria Miller’s expenses" Agree 62% Disagree 15%
Poor old scottish tory surgers. Always wrong, always out of touch.
If Scotland goes independent, what passport would she get?
As she is also shortly getting US citizenship, (whose passport fee is 1/3 of the UK fee), will an independent Scotland allow dual citizenship?
Majority of public want @Nigel_Farage in leaders debates. Even Conservatives say Cameron will look cowardly otherwise http://grassrootsconservatives.org.uk/latest-news/permalink/2014-04/take-the-fight-to-nigel-farage-pm-urged-by-grassroots-conservatives …
Fop Chicken.
Nigel Farage: "UKIP will not cost the Conservatives the next General Election. David Cameron as leader will cost them the next election"
And they can always cancel nuclear shutdown if they need to.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
The only thing I know about White Papers is you need to wash your hands after reading them :-)
PoliceFailures @PoliceFailures 4m
Peter Bone: Tory MP Investigated Over Expenses http://news.sky.com/story/1240986/
Ian Geldard @igeldard 10h
MPs' expenses pay for Conservative party conference gay orgy http://dexpr.es/1hwVLWx pic.twitter.com/uSRs8T6xL1
Truth To Power @_truthtopower_ 2h
"Wanna put on an orgy at the Tory Party Conference?" "Sure thing, why not? Just slap it on the public expenses account!" @Stifanovich
Irene Short @ipasho 5h
David and Samantha Cameron enjoy an Easter break on Lanzarote http://gu.com/p/3zdx7/tw via @guardian Thought he was busy copying Jesus....
Tim Aidley @PlanetTimmy
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a poor man to enter the Cabinet" #CameronJesus
If you ironed it out, Scotland is bigger in surface area apparently.
DYOR of course.
Robert S. is among the nearest PB has got to an professional market participant. If his views on the outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum are in any way representative of the market as a whole (and I believe they are), then not only will market reaction to a YES vote reflect the risks outlined by your Swiss roller, but they will also include the overreaction which results from shock news.
Now there will be many who respond by saying that the polls between now and September will diminish any potential shock reaction by increasingly indicating a YES voting intention. But all that means is that the shock reaction will be unwound before the referendum result, i.e. between now and September.
Real risks.
Tax Evasion/Avoidance has climbed £4bn under George Osborne while he continues to sack Tax Collectors http://buff.ly/1iGpitl
I actually think it's plausible there might be a small rise in rates, but small is the word. I'll bet you the same amount at evens that the average interest rate on UK 10Y bonds in the six months after separation is not more than 150 basis points higher than the average in the six months before.
Only on PB would someone try to answer that question - thanks!
1. Apply for a seat at the UN.
2. Apply for a loan at the World Bank.
3. Establish a national airline and apply for landing rights at Heathrow.
@SaidOtmani 7h
Atos judges DYING scientist fit to work - despite serious heart condition and brain tumour http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/atos-judges-dying-robert-barlow-3394486#.U0qjWuCzHXo.twitter … CAMERON & CLEGG ROAD SHOW
I think your question is one for the OS, or at least someone with (say) the OS terrain data (1), perl/python and a little time. ;-)
I've certainly never heard it posed before. I'd expect the volume of the Cairngorm Plateau alone would have more volume than Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk combined.
(1): http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/terrain-50.html
I used to get requests while in Dumfries to "Just pop over to Edinburgh and do a collection"....inquiring about overtime puzzled some of them immensely.
There are fortunately, many more who are just looking for a bit of peace and quiet from the bluster and threats from YESNP, and will do their talking through the ballot box.
Even now, the higher echelons of the SNP are preparing for 2 outcomes, Yes and No, with the possibility of a third option of Nearly Yes. They are fully aware that a No vote will be disastrous for the party and that they will need to recover before the elections in 2016. If it is a Nearly Yes, then, of course, they will plan for a re-run in the next parliament.
Of course, there will be no talk about the latter 2 options in case it disturbs the troops.
@Edin_Rolz
I have always thought that Salmond and Cameron both knew and agreed the likely outcome of the referendum and that there is a 'mutual understanding' on how to protect each other's interests in the aftermath of a No vote.
My ideal response of a confederacy of sovereign nations, with terms of the union built up from a blank sheet and with voluntary surrender of power is probably a step too far.
But simple 'Devo Max' will also be no answer. The reason the referendum will fail is that there are mutual assets and structures whose continuance are in both parties' and the Scots people's interest (Monarchy, Pound etc. etc.).
What Salmond and Cameron will both need to do, and do quickly, is work out a list of realistic, popular and mutually beneficial devolutionary changes which can be promised for implementation as soon as possible. And probably more important than changes to structures and powers will the need for a change in tone from both sides.
Frankly I'm hopeful. Both Salmond and Cameron are sufficiently astute politicians to know what will be needed.
The Act of Union of 1707 specifically refers to a "united kingdom" of England and Scotland, so while England and Scotland became the Great Britain of 1802, they are quite correctly referred to as the original United Kingdom. Nevertheless the Acts of Union 1707 can't be repealed as you say.
Another old joke - you have to say it as it doesn't work in writing - How do you get 2 Wales in a Mini? One in the front and one in the back.
An oldie and recycled and adustable one - what do the donkeys on the beach at Llandudno get for lunch?
An hour, same as everyone else.
I have always thought that Salmond and Cameron both knew and agreed the likely outcome of the referendum and that there is a 'mutual understanding' on how to protect each other's interests in the aftermath of a No vote.
My ideal response of a confederacy of sovereign nations, with terms of the union built up from a blank sheet and with voluntary surrender of power is probably a step too far.
But simple 'Devo Max' will also be no answer. The reason the referendum will fail is that there are mutual assets and structures whose continuance are in both parties' and the Scots people's interest (Monarchy, Pound etc. etc.).
What Salmond and Cameron will both need to do, and do quickly, is work out a list of realistic, popular and mutually beneficial devolutionary changes which can be promised for implementation as soon as possible. And probably more important than changes to structures and powers will the need for a change in tone from both sides.
Frankly I'm hopeful. Both Salmond and Cameron are sufficiently astute politicians to know what will be needed.The UK is not sovereign. HMG implements laws decided in Brussels.
The problem with devolving power from London to Edinburgh is that London is not where the power resides, and the attempt would reveal that.
But he'll learn from the experience and he'll be back. Reember 18 months ago he was an amateur, and he's still too young to either drink or rent a car.
Yet again, it proves the adage of the tournament being decided on the back 9 on Sunday.
There's a question of how you define volume. Do you measure from sea level (which is a non-circular geoid anyway), or from the centre of the earth, which would have similar problems? If sea level do you include just land mass, or subtract estuarine waters?
As the client, you should really specify the problem more fully. ;-)
13/04/2014 22:53
Bookies give 5/1 the LibDems get no seats at the European Election #whatpointthelibdems
The problem with devolving power from London to Edinburgh is that London is not where the power resides, and the attempt would reveal that.
My preference for a voluntary union of sovereign states applies as much to Scotland within the United Kingdom as it does to the United Kingdom within the EU.
The future success of both Unions depends on successful 'bottom up' reform.
Scotland surrendering sovereignty to the UK without reciprocal benefit is as unsustainable as the UK doing the same with the EU.
1.lower taxes
2. cheaper petrol
3. cheaper satellite TV
4. great income from defense contracts for airforce and navy
5 baseball and NFL football in kilts....
The problem with devolving power from London to Edinburgh is that London is not where the power resides, and the attempt would reveal that.
The UK government is sovereign, but it gave away powers without asking the people. The UK is sovereign in that it could decide to take back those powers.
It would be difficult for them to lose their final place in the South East region given there are so many seats available there.
Kev66 (Ta3) ✌️ @kwr66 Apr 12
From the Irish Times, subtly getting it. #yes✌️ pic.twitter.com/3dUgHUNJuh
I think you are on the right side of the 6-4 about UKIP votes > Lib Dems I think you have with some people here.
They're also 6/4 ukip to outpull lib dems in 2015
BobaFett Posts: 990
2:32PM
@MikeSmithson - great documentary/focus group on the Red Liberals on C4 News Catch Up site. Very much backs up your arguments.
Www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/100414
Click on film in bottom right
Flag Quote · Off Topic
Lots of it about. Rather like forecasting the Premier League winner in August with the caveat that you will update the forecast next month if your tip turns out to be shit. That won't get the money of those who have followed you back.